Appeal No. 1997-4071
Application No. 08/047,511
claim 27 also requires a plurality of entries being entered
into a particular part of memory that is associated with a
processing function. In particular, Appellants' claim 27
recites
classifying strings of character data as
corresponding to one of a plurality of different
character processing functions; storing the
classified input character data in a corresponding
one of plural memory areas, each memory area being
specifically allocated to one of the different
character processing functions.
"Inherency and obviousness are distinct concepts." W. L.
Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1555,
220 USPQ 303, 314 (Fed. Cir. 1983) citing In re Spormann, 363
F.2d 444, 448, 150 USPQ 449, 452 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore,
"[t]o establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence 'must make
clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily
present in the thing described in the reference, and that it
would be so recognized by person of ordinary skill.'" In re
Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed.
Cir. 1999) citing Continental Can Co v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.3d
1264, 1268, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
"Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007